BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, clinical guidelines recommend that services for depression and anxiety should be structured around a stepped care model, where patients receive treatment at different 'steps,' with the intensity of treatment (i.e., the amount and type) increasing at each step if they fail to benefit at previous steps. There are very limited data available on the implementation of this model, particularly on the intensity of psychological treatment at each step. Our objective was to describe patient pathways through stepped care services and the impact of this on patient flow and management. METHODS: We recorded service design features of four National Health Service sites implementing stepped care (e.g., the types of treatments available and their links with other treatments), together with the actual treatments received by individual patients and their transitions between different treatment steps. We computed the proportions of patients accessing, receiving, and transiting between the various steps and mapped these proportions visually to illustrate patient movement. RESULTS: We collected throughput data on 7,698 patients referred. Patient pathways were highly complex and very variable within and between sites. The ratio of low (e.g., self-help) to high-intensity (e.g., cognitive behaviour therapy) treatments delivered varied between sites from 22:1, through 2.1:1, 1.4:1 to 0.5:1. The numbers of patients allocated directly to high-intensity treatment varied from 3% to 45%. Rates of stepping up from low-intensity treatment to high-intensity treatment were less than 10%. CONCLUSIONS: When services attempt to implement the recommendation for stepped care in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, there were significant differences in implementation and consequent high levels of variation in patient pathways. Evaluations driven by the principles of implementation science (such as targeted planning, defined implementation strategies, and clear activity specification around service organisation) are required to improve evidence on the most effective, efficient, and acceptable stepped care systems.
BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, clinical guidelines recommend that services for depression and anxiety should be structured around a stepped care model, where patients receive treatment at different 'steps,' with the intensity of treatment (i.e., the amount and type) increasing at each step if they fail to benefit at previous steps. There are very limited data available on the implementation of this model, particularly on the intensity of psychological treatment at each step. Our objective was to describe patient pathways through stepped care services and the impact of this on patient flow and management. METHODS: We recorded service design features of four National Health Service sites implementing stepped care (e.g., the types of treatments available and their links with other treatments), together with the actual treatments received by individual patients and their transitions between different treatment steps. We computed the proportions of patients accessing, receiving, and transiting between the various steps and mapped these proportions visually to illustrate patient movement. RESULTS: We collected throughput data on 7,698 patients referred. Patient pathways were highly complex and very variable within and between sites. The ratio of low (e.g., self-help) to high-intensity (e.g., cognitive behaviour therapy) treatments delivered varied between sites from 22:1, through 2.1:1, 1.4:1 to 0.5:1. The numbers of patients allocated directly to high-intensity treatment varied from 3% to 45%. Rates of stepping up from low-intensity treatment to high-intensity treatment were less than 10%. CONCLUSIONS: When services attempt to implement the recommendation for stepped care in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, there were significant differences in implementation and consequent high levels of variation in patient pathways. Evaluations driven by the principles of implementation science (such as targeted planning, defined implementation strategies, and clear activity specification around service organisation) are required to improve evidence on the most effective, efficient, and acceptable stepped care systems.
Authors: Marna S Barrett; Wee-Jhong Chua; Paul Crits-Christoph; Mary Beth Gibbons; D Casiano; Don Thompson Journal: Psychotherapy (Chic) Date: 2008-06-01
Authors: M K Murphy; N A Black; D L Lamping; C M McKee; C F Sanderson; J Askham; T Marteau Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 1998 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Jane Pirkis; Bridget Bassilios; Justine Fletcher; Kristy Sanderson; Matthew J Spittal; Kylie King; Fay Kohn; Philip Burgess; Grant Blashki Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: Christopher Dowrick; Linda Gask; Suzanne Edwards; Saadia Aseem; Peter Bower; Heather Burroughs; Amy Catlin; Carolyn Chew-Graham; Pam Clarke; Mark Gabbay; Simon Gowers; Derek Hibbert; Marija Kovandzic; Jonathan Lamb; Karina Lovell; Anne Rogers; Mari Lloyd-Williams; Waquas Waheed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Amy M Kilbourne; Kathryn Beck; Brigitta Spaeth-Rublee; Parashar Ramanuj; Robert W O'Brien; Naomi Tomoyasu; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Kerem Böge; Carine Karnouk; Andreas Hoell; Mira Tschorn; Inge Kamp-Becker; Frank Padberg; Aline Übleis; Alkomiet Hasan; Peter Falkai; Hans-Joachim Salize; Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg; Tobias Banaschewski; Frank Schneider; Ute Habel; Paul Plener; Eric Hahn; Maren Wiechers; Michael Strupf; Andrea Jobst; Sabina Millenet; Edgar Hoehne; Thorsten Sukale; Raphael Dinauer; Martin Schuster; Nassim Mehran; Franziska Kaiser; Stefanie Bröcheler; Klaus Lieb; Andreas Heinz; Michael Rapp; Malek Bajbouj Journal: Lancet Reg Health Eur Date: 2022-06-06
Authors: Danielle Loeb; Amber Sieja; Janet Corral; Nichole G Zehnder; Gretchen Guiton; Donald E Nease Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Milton L Wainberg; Kathryn L Lovero; Cristiane S Duarte; Andre Fiks Salem; Milena Mello; Charl Bezuidenhout; Jennifer Mootz; Paulino Feliciano; Antonio Suleman; Palmira Fortunato Dos Santos; Myrna M Weissman; Francine Cournos; Andrea Horvath Marques; Wilza Fumo; Dirceu Mabunda; Jean-Marie E Alves-Bradford; Marcelo Mello; Jair J Mari; Phuti Ngwepe; Zuleyha Cidav; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Andrew Medina-Marino; Melanie Wall; Lidia Gouveia; Maria A Oquendo Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2020-12-18 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Paul Y Takahashi; Lindsey R Haas; Stephanie M Quigg; Ivana T Croghan; James M Naessens; Nilay D Shah; Gregory J Hanson Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Peter Bower; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Alex Sutton; Tony Kendrick; David A Richards; Simon Gilbody; Sarah Knowles; Pim Cuijpers; Gerhard Andersson; Helen Christensen; Björn Meyer; Marcus Huibers; Filip Smit; Annemieke van Straten; Lisanne Warmerdam; Michael Barkham; Linda Bilich; Karina Lovell; Emily Tung-Hsueh Liu Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-02-26